I don't know how you could read it any other way. Your accusation of dishonesty seems unwarranted considering I provided the original source.

Death threats **are** no big deal and lots of people are being hysterical. Celebrities have always gotten death threats and they're almost never acted on; Wu's at greater risk of being struck by lightning or getting cancer from a banana.

Once again, there were no death threats made before the murder. It's the equivalent of saying she's at risk because someone somewhere in the world was murdered.

No, she's exploiting tragedy for fear mongering tactics and it's despicable. Some boy came home to find his mother dead, put on display, and all she can think to do is make it about herself.

If I go 5 days without a death threat it means I've been too busy to play any competitive games.

k...

From the article, "It's now been 5 days since I received a death threat."

Regarding "systemic violence against women":
- Murderer had a previous felony assault conviction, committed against a man
- 78.7% of homicide victims are male (Wikipedia)
- Wu, to the best of my knowledge, has not suffered any violence

The tweet is not some loose empathetic connection, it's a transparent and irrational attempt to tie completely unrelated things together, with herself as the focus of attention.

"Non impediti ratione cogitationus" indeed.

Wu is trying to draw a link between Gamergate and the tragedy in Port Orchard - https://twitter.com/Spacekatga...

Irregardless of the fact that: Gamergate discussion is actively prohibited on 4chan, the murderer has no connection to Gamergate, and no death threats were involved.

Please stop giving this woman a platform. She's obviously in it for the advertising and attention. Screenshots of her game have been plastered all over news articles for weeks now. She's self-reporting that she no longer receives threats so that can't be the excuse anymore.

I don't care if he already resigned, the man should be removed early to send a message.

This is the same man who argued ridiculous charges were justified in the Aaron Schwartz prosecution because he was also offered plea bargains. Abuses of the justice system need to be strongly condemned at the highest level, not defended and lobbied for.

People don't like this answer so they try impressively hard to explain it away with other factors -

Major Wikipedia contribution requires hacking (in the broad definition of the term, ie low-level attention to detail, exhaustive research on a narrow topic, investment in seemingly arbitrary semantic distinctions, ect.). EVERY SINGLE FIELD which has required these traits has a severe distribution bias towards men - electrical engineering, theoretical physics, early programming, actual computer hacking, ect. Even more telling, the percentages are always similar - women make up 10-20% of these fields.

I'm sorry, but it's obvious that women are simply less drawn to this type of work. There are probably evolutionary reasons behind the cognitive difference, but that's outside my expertise.

It should be noted that while Obamacare is no more socialist than taxes in general, it does have the unfortunate side-effect of decentivizing preventative health care. It's not exactly analogous to the "tragedy of the commons" theory since preventative measures are presumably still better for you in the long run, but it's not hard to imagine that people will become less healthy as a result having minimal fiscal responsibility for the outcome.

Earlier adopters of universal health care are still struggling with whether or not they need to regulate things like obesity to keep health care costs reasonable.

Lots of people have been sentenced for similar material depicting minors under the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

The enforcement is pretty arbitrary though.

The point was that "tasty edible things" is an unearned luxury; we haven't figured out the sustainability part yet. The research may prove useful in the long run, but it's jumping the gun (presumably because "We can grow the things you eat at home on the moon!" sounds better for publicity purposes).

The massive inefficiencies in our food production (and the fact that we scoff at things like the UN report on edible insects) is frustrating, but extending that to an environment harsher than any on Earth is downright dumb.

Why not something easier/more efficient like seaweed?

Unfortunately seems like more of a publicity thing.

What if there really were sexy singles in his area?

I really wasn't trying to imply that you're anything close to "dumb" (quite the opposite), but trying to get through college courses with massive sleep deprivation is the cognitive equivalent of trying to get through your courses constantly drunk/hungover - it leads to "passable" results at best.

Given your elaboration, it sounds like you can function on very little sleep without accruing sleep deprivation. AFAIK that's very much a genetic rather than learned ability, and it puts you in a very small percentage of the population. Your intelligence presumably puts you in a tiny percentage of that tiny percentage. When it comes to national education policies, I think we might have to aim a bit lower.

"Up hill both ways!" act aside, it's possible to work your way through college, sure. It's gotten harder with tuition increases and (arguably) coursework increases, but people still manage it. Personally, I was in a Physics program that expected ~60 hours a week in coursework and no one worked more than ~10 hours a week on top of that; it just wasn't realistic.

That being said, do you really think you learned as much (natural intelligence accounted for) in three years working four part time jobs and sleeping 4 hours a night as the guy who was well rested everyday and had more time than the bare minimum to devote to every assignment?

While your individual devotion is commendable, nowhere in the world is the average (or even above average) person going to have that in them. It's not even a good method of weeding people out; the ability to work menial jobs and complete passable academics with massive sleep deprivation doesn't really reflect your ability to perform mentally taxing tasks for 40-60hrs a week later in life.

You're wrong to exclude basic living expenses. Completing a high workload degree (ie science and technology) in four years means you don't have time to be earning (assuming you and the program are doing it right).

How many young people can coast on their savings for 4+ years?

Were you on vacation when the US killed millions of people in the middle east in response to a first strike and perceived threat?

How about these literal genocides that continue into the 21st century? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

Perhaps you've missed the obvious comparison to our use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I'm sorry, but the already largely won battle for gay marriage (which amounts to tax breaks and hospital visitation rights for the most part - so much for "second class citizens") just doesn't measure up.